share this

Not long after Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1968, I was in Sacramento advocating for legislation of interest to the California Teachers Association, for whom I was working at the time. My boss and I happened to be in the Capitol when a hearing was taking place on a measure banning so-called “Saturday night specials” — the type of cheap and easily concealed handgun used to kill RFK.

The committee room was packed with opponents of the bill, including members of the National Rifle Association (NRA). My boss and mentor, Dr. Charles Hamilton, looked around the room and said, “This room is filled with two kinds of people — the hunters and the hunted.”

In the years since, on the occasion of assassinations and attempted assassinations, drive-by shootings and mass killings, I have recalled Charles’s observation and I have been outraged by the gun lobby’s unapologetic arrogance and intransigence. On December 14, in Newtown, CT, a heavily armed madman murdered his mother at their home and then gunned down twenty little kids and six of their teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School. One week later the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre argued that the way to prevent such tragedies is to add even more guns to the mix.

My initial reaction to the NRA’s statement was more outrage and disgust. I thought their defense of the Second Amendment rests in part on the bizarre premise that citizens need guns so that they might be able to overthrow what the gun lobby considers a tyrannical federal government — a government that I and millions of other Americans probably elected. And, I would thereby become one of the “hunted” that Charles Hamilton identified that day in Sacramento.

A good friend countered my argument by suggesting that both its content and tone would serve only to aggravate the already polarized debate over gun control; he went on to point out that, “One of the problems with political polarization — and with trying to stoke polarization — is that it inhibits people from thinking that an idea pushed by an adversary might be worth considering.”

A fair point, I thought. It is time to go beyond where I typically come down on gun control (among other issues). I need to be more flexible, more open to new thinking, to be more imaginative. And that led me to conclude that I should pay more attention to some of the intellectual heavyweights on the political right, people like Rep. Louis Gohmert (TX), Sen. Jim Inhofe (OK), former Governors Mike Huckabee (AR) and Sarah Palin (AK), the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, and so many others who seek to enlighten us every day, almost always on Fox News.

LaPierre and his cohorts say that the answer to gun violence in America (where more than 200 million firearms are already in private hands), is more guns. Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant.

But we shouldn’t stop there. Too much hunger in the world? Let’s reduce the supply of food. Too much disease? Easy — decrease immunizations and treatment. Too much poverty? Reduce the number of jobs. Bothered by the number of babies born to unwed mothers? Cut off family planning. You think global warming is a joke? Increase the emission of greenhouse gases. And if you think our students aren’t learning enough, the answer is obvious: fire teachers, close schools and get rid of textbooks and school supplies.

According to LaPierre, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Let’s just assume, for the sake of discussion, that he’s right about that. And let’s also assume that he would agree that somewhere around 99.9% of all kids, at least those in elementary school, are good.

Voila!

Another obvious answer: Give every child a gun — not just guards, principals and teachers, but the students, too. Now, some assault weapons would be too big and too hard for little tykes to handle, but not so with small caliber pistols, like the infamous Derringer used to kill Abraham Lincoln. Of course morning recess could get a little messy and teachers would have to think twice about disciplining or even correcting an armed first-grader, but that’s just the price we’ll have to pay to ensure that the NRA’s version of the Second Amendment isn’t abridged.

These proposals are truly modest. And simple. How could I have been so wrong for so long? Shame on me

Les Francis is a former Democratic operative (Executive Director of both the DNC and DCCC), as well as Congressional aide (to former Rep. Norman Y. Mineta of San Jose) and deputy White House Chief of Staff during the Carter Administration.

No. It’s not a “straw man’ argument; anymore than those little kids were made of straw.

The gun lobby’s self-righteous and outright delusional arguments has littered this country with dead bodies, destroyed families, and debilitating cynicism. All for folks who believe life is a “24″ episode.

Enough. Your dreams (and our nightmares) died with those kindergartners.

Following the lead of much smarter people than me, we need to treat the gun lobby like we did cigarettes and drunk drivers. Like the latter two, the gun lobby harms the individuals and puts society at risk. But also like the latter two it will require massive amounts of public health education to convince most folks.

Note I distinguish the gun lobby from responsible gun owners. Reluctantly I concede folks right to hunt [but you better use a single shot], and keep guns for self-protection in more isolated areas [without huge bullet clips].

In time, folks like Wayne LaPierre will fade like the Marlboro Man. Bet on it.

Yeah, that’s the spirit! Why address the points Mr. Francis raised and engage in thoughtful debate, when you can call him names?

Intransigent know-nothings like you are a major part of the problem in this country. And as the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. once observed, nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

What f was that? I want 2 minutes of my life back. “the hunters and the hunted”? what does that even mean?

Mr. Francis I really wish you had spent your inches explaining the source of your “outrage and disgust” instead of trying to get a laugh. Who doesn’t like good satire? Unfortunately the friend who suggested that polarization inhibits thought was obviously right, but apparently it also cripples funniness.

It’s called irony folks. He’s trying to show how truly dumb these suggestions are by extending them to their illogical conclusions. Do you really want 5- and 6-year-olds with real guns? I’ve been around kids when they throw tantrums and I sure don’t!

Nor do I want teachers armed. I pissed off enough of them and am glad a ruler was the most lethal weapon they had. Not to mention the fact that gun security would be a major issue around all those kids.

Armed guards are safer from that standpoint, but perhaps not much more effective. After all, they had one at Columbine High School. He couldn’t get there fast enough to stop the carnage. A guy with a gun in the Tucson shopping center said he couldn’t tell who the shooter was. So unarmed bystanders who could, took him down instead. And the national guard members in the Aurora theater said there was no way they’d have drawn a gun in the smoke and darkness with panicked people running for the exits.

In short, more guns did not and will not solve the problem. We’ve already proven that. A lot of people have died needlessly to prove that. We currently have 89 guns for every 100 Americans, and we have the highest rate of gun deaths of any industrialized country in the world. If more guns would make us safer, we’d have the lowest rate of gun deaths. So those who suggest more guns are the solution are just being foolish. Mr. Francis is simply pointing that out.